So...I have mixed feelings about 60 frames/second porn that Frank has on FTW now. it looks "unnatural" to me. anyone else agree?
Printable View
So...I have mixed feelings about 60 frames/second porn that Frank has on FTW now. it looks "unnatural" to me. anyone else agree?
Have you tried blinking more often ?Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyCola
I am confused. What happen?
I've researched this before and normally most eyes can't tell the difference in film after 45-60 frames per second so I don't know what the big deal is.
Unless you mean going up to 60 frames per second from a lower fps. In that case I don't know what the problem would be since the picture would only be clearer and more realistic.
the newest Baiw video on Frank's site is at 60 frames a second and it just doesn't look right...the higher frame rate seems off to my eyes. IDK if it is just me or not.
that makes no sense....seriously check out the Baiw clip and tell me if it looks as good as the first Baiw clip Frank put up. The higher frame rate has, at least to my eyes, poor and unnatural transitions. i realize that playback at 60fps (or in this case, 59fps) is supposed to be more "natural" and "lifelike" such as comparing PS4 and PS3 video...but in this case, it is the exact opposite. I wonder if the video was just upscaled and encoded at 59fps errantly?Quote:
Originally Posted by TempestTS
Well you probably won't like this then. Youtube might give the option for users to post 60 fps videos in the future. Youtube currently only hosts 30 fps videos for most users. Only a few exclusive channels are able to host 60 fps videos. There's a noticeable difference in clarity as far as frame rates. This is a 60 fps video on Youtube. Watch in HD:
Titanfall Gameplay at 60fps (High Frame Rate EXCLUSIVE!!) - YouTube
lily...in that case, being that it is a video game with no realistic elements, i'm fine with the fluidity of the scene. in the particular clip i'm talking about...it is off putting.
It's all motion. Realistic or not. Just like flipping a flip book. It doesn't matter if each picture I flip is a real life photo time lapse or a drawing. If I flip them both at 60 frames per sec it uses the same principles. It's not easy to find real life footage of 60 frames per sec on youtube. 60 frames per sec videos alone are rare to find on Youtube.Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyCola
Normal frame rate is 24fps. Human eye can't see 'pictures'.. it's film but high speed movement can be seen bit stepping or blurring.
If U' got 60fps videocamera it's the most natural framrate for film.
Quote is linked... so go and read more about that.
Quote:
"Doug has done extensive research into the effects of higher frame rates and discovered that 60 fps is truly the sweet spot for creating highly realistic content with minimal stepping and blurring. In his research, test subjects were connected to biometric monitoring systems that took physiological readings as the subjects watched content at a variety of frame rates. At 60 frames per second, the subjects elicited the strongest readings, indicating that they were more stimulated and impacted by content produced at this rate. This research is a fundamental reason that Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit films at 48 fps and James Cameron is producing Avatar 2 at 60 fps. The industry is definitely moving in the direction of frames rates higher than 24 fps."
60 and 30fps bite ass. It's that stupid soap opera/video look. A high def version of that soap opera, daytime TV, Telemundo looking bullshit. High frame rate = more frames, less motion blur, not more quantifiable quality. I'll only ever shoot in 24p. 60+ should only be used when you intend to slow down footage for slo-mo shots, that way you can cut back on cheap looking frame blending in post. If you can't see the difference between 24 and 60, your brain is broken and you are unaware of how much less you are enjoying moving visual media than correct brained people.
Each frame is like a picture, but it's happening with dozens a sec. Less motion blur = more quantifiable quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by SexSlave1972
https://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
This is an app that mimics the effects of motion blur with frames per sec. I wouldn't worry about the background. I just turned the velocity of that off because it's pretty annoying. If you set one ball to 60 fps at 500px/s and the other one to 24 fps at 500 px/s you can easily see the effect fps has. If you turn the 24 fps ball up to 48 you can definitely see a difference. There's still a tiny bit of motion blur, but it's not nearly as noticeable as the 24. Edison thought that 48 fps would be the standard of the future. I honestly think he is right because a little bit of motion blur isn't necessarily a bad thing, but being able to make out objects clearly is a must.
Rally and Jamie have a point, though... You would think that a higher frame rate would simply look smoother and better, but the effect can be kind of strange looking, at least if you're used to 24 fps. I haven't seen the porn clips Rally is talking about (do I need a subscription?) but I've seen movie clips with the higher frame rates and they almost look a bit too "real", like you're watching a movie set instead of watching a movie. Or a soap opera.Quote:
Originally Posted by LilyRox
There was a lot of controversy when the Hobbit came out with the higher frame rate, you can read about it here: http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/t...ure-of-movies/
That's because real life isn't limited by motion blur, only the human eye is. The lower the fps the more limited the film is and the more motion blur you'll see when you normally wouldn't in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuzySnappz
"48 FPS and Beyond: How High Frame Rate Films Affect Perception... Film cognition can help us understand why higher framerates look so weird, and what filmmakers will have to do to challenge 90 years of convention..."
http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452...ct-perception/
I still say just blink more often - that should sort your right out...
or I could poke you in the eye - that would be just like cutting 60fps in half, right?
You'd poke me in the eye with your penis? That might be interesting, though still painful.Quote:
Originally Posted by TempestTS
Motion blur looks natural to the human eye. Look around really quickly... shit got blurry for a second didn't it? Nuff said. 24 looks better. anything higher looks like a fever dream and should not be tolerated. 24 fps wasn't an arbitrary number pulled out of someone's ass a hundred years ago. It looks fucking pleasant. Dickwads that try for more are nothing but techno masturbators, only doing wacky shit merely because the tech exists. More of something doesn't mean better anything, whether your talking about frame rates or kitchen spices - more only means more and in the case of frame rates, more comes as a detriment to the craft of film making.
I was an optician at one point so here we go at the technical explanation.
We live in constant blur - the human eye has a field of focus (visual angle) of about 2 degrees - basically hold a nickle at arms length and that's the size your eye is actually able to focus sharply on. Our brain is a marvelous thing even though our actual focus area is tiny it fills in the fuzzy spots for our mind and we think we see the world in a great deal more detail than we actually do.
Visual angle "V" can be calculated using the formula
http://i.stack.imgur.com/kEsVn.png
where S is the object's size, D is the distance to the object.
When you see super sharp HD or Ultra HD shot at 60fps close up (ie you are frapping like crazy to your computer monitor) you are feeding your brain much more detail than its expecting at that distance so the result can be a bit jarring to the senses.
This is the long winded technical way of saying - Jamie's right
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
^^This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
:iagree:
Exactly.
Same shit about how un-natural it looks was spoken when digital format came for photographs.
Film was natural, digital was plastic. Today, nobody but film enthusiastic's doesn't say nothing about it. Eye adapts, mind adapts.
Wrong. This isn't a matter of how media formats may effect the way content is delivered and interpreted by the ear or eye. Enough ones and zeros mashed together can absolutely mimic the effects an analogue signal produces as a human would appreciate them.
The the frame rates of a film, video, stop motion and digital video is physically, mathematically and quantifiable different from one rate to the next. Purposefully so. Frame rates produce very specific effects for very specific reasons. They are specialized and one frame rate is absolutely superior to another in the field for which it was designed. High frame rates have their uses. Bearing the the complete weight of narrative driven story telling is not one of them.
I know it feels like what you said is right, but you have to crack open a few books and do a little research before you speak of things that are based on mathematical principle and governed by industry and communication commissions.
Again, high frame rates as a standard for narrative story telling is a jerk off maneuver for bored, over-geeked directors who ran out of stories to tell and now lean on mere tech as expression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexSlave1972
The reason we have been stuck at 24 fps for most video purposes is because of adaptability. The effect that 24 fps uses is what in psychology would call the Law of Closure. Your brain can see gaps between the film of 24 fps, but "fills" them in mentally. If there wasn't any gaps 48 or 60 fps wouldn't look any different to us.
Over the years of adapting to the 24 fps standard the brain is used to deciphering film in a certain pattern. For many people once you view a clip of 48 fps or 60 fps your brain is still treating it as a 24 fps film and filling in the "wrong" parts. This is why some people say 48 fps or 60 fps looks "weird", but they don't know why.
24 isn't a magic number. It's just a number that adapted well to adding sound with video, conversions and they never changed it. The secret is the divisibility of 6. This is why 48 and 60 are often talked about a lot too.
In order for us to move ahead to the future of 48 and 60 fps the entire industry has to change though. There's no point in filming 48 or 60 fps if lots of places take the film and show it in 24 or 30 fps. This is probably the reason why we haven't adapted to it as well.
24 was the magic number that clicked with sound. Kinda tells you everything you need to know. Imagine, the most natural synchronicity between sound and site is the one we prefer? Mind blowing. 24 looks correct right out of the box. A mind might adapt to another frame rate, ( you go volunteer for that experiment, I got movies to make) but 24fps requires no adaptation period... it just works.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. All efforts to replace 24fps rather than acting as a format adjunct is simply jerking off to electronic gadgetry for lack of originality in content and experimentation without focused direction or purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilyRox
Holy shit, and another thing... no experiment needed. We all grew up seeing as much video footage as we fave film footage. Video having the higher cheaper looking frame rate. Yet we are still able to discern between the differences. This high frame rate shit ain't new and attacking our old ways... it truly does look like crap when trying to use it to make the thing it wasn't designed for. Everyone fuck off, I win.
Also, also... if 'better on a technical level' were the alpha and omega of standards by which we measured quality, the only bands we'd listen to would be Dream Theater, King Crimson, Yes and Rush. Great bands all in their own right but seriously, Fuck. A. Barrel. Of. That. Shit.
I know absolutely nothing about this topic, but this thread has piqued my interest. It seemed to me that filming with a low shudder speed would create some noticeable stroboscopic effects; i.e. wheel going backward etc. I tend to agree with Jamie though in that if your interests are narrative, there may be no need to eliminate these sorts of aberrations (which we're all probably used to anyway). I did a little searching and found this
http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm
It's an article which claims that films shot in 24 fps when played on high end blue ray systems which play back at 1080 fps (do I have that right?) suffer from some rather extreme visual distortions. Like I said, I have no dog in this fight. Just thought the article might be relevant to the discussion.
It's not the we are use to them. It's that they look fanfuckingtastic on a fundamental level. There is a reason that it takes a lot of time, money and training to make a film look like a proper film, because reality looks awful when trying to take your audience to a realm outside of everyday experience. Watch any behind the scenes feature of any movie where the crew used video cameras to shoot footage on the exact same sets, with the exact same lighting and the exact same actors as they did when using cinematic cameras and you'll see exactly why we use the frame rates and shutter speeds that we do to make proper movies.
I can see that. Its fascinating to see the wheels slowly go backwards as a filmed car speeds forward...it seems psychologically to enhance the expression of speed.Quote:
It's not the we are use to them. It's that they look fanfuckingtastic on a fundamental level.
Must 24 fps be played back with the appropriate equipment as the article suggests, or is that bullshit?
No, 1080p is the screen resolution of the picture. Fps are how many frames per second there is. 24 fps was the magic number when film was created for sound. There are ways of syncing audio for 48 fps and 60 fps now days though.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The article is talking about the motion judder you get when filming in low fps like 24 fps. 24 frames per sec sounds like a lot, but it's not compared to our vision and how much we can process in a sec within the real world. I like the little comment in there. "Welcome to 24p" lol.
Thanks
Movies try to avoid this a lot with the editing. I have seen tons of fighting movies where you can see this easily though. There are lots of movies out there that have ridiculously fast hand to hand combat scenes where you literally can't hardly see anything because of the motion blur. I also think 48p or 60p would be great for watching real fights like the UFC.
High frame rate + sports = appropriate use.
High shutter speed + action scene = appropriate use, (think the opening D-Day scene in Saving Private Ryan.)
This makes perfect sense and jibes with what I've seen. You lose realism by seeing pictures with less motion blur. I also think it changes perspective of the viewer; instead of seeing the image as you would ordinarily see it you are reminded that you are watching something artificial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
People are largely confusing the terms "real" and "good" and "fake" because they want those words to match how the feel.
Films look great because they are basically composed of rich, high contrast, color graded images with all sorts off odd, mostly shallow depths of field. Every frame is almost a painting in its own right. This in turn takes you into the land of story telling and imagination when blended with an appropriate frame rate. When the mind is forced to fill in the gaps, the film largely becomes a product of the mind. It becomes internalized. You and the film are one. An immersive experience.
That's why plays aren't the most popular medium for story telling in this day and age. It's too real, so you are only bearing witness to a story that never really belongs to you. It belongs to the actors and characters on stage. A play can be enjoyable but only in a visceral sense and not in the same way that films are normally enjoyed. A higher frame rate turns movies into plays, or operas... or more appropriately, soap operas, (See? Things are named things for a reason.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Interesting thread.
I would like to add my two-penneth. or should I say two-cents worth?
Until the advent of Blu-Ray (how many people have this, even now?), we would only see the "filmic look" (24fps) at our local cinema.
Anything else, on television, whether it is via the broadcasting network or a DVD, would either be in 25fps (PAL - Mostly Europe) or 30fps (NTSC - USA) and interlaced at that!! These framerates generally being governed by the frequency of the electricity supply. PAL=50 Hertz, NTSC=60 Hertz. It is all very complicated, right down to what colours space is used and even the resolutions are different.
Now HD television has arrived, used in conjunction with Blu-Ray, We can watch films at their original 24fps. So amongst the special fx, the colour grading and the purposeful cinematography of any decent film, did anyone notice the framerate difference? Maybe in USA, since 30fps to 24 fps is a big drop requiring a method of conversion called 3:2 Pulldown. What about in Europe? 25fps to 24fps (film is sped up by an acceptable 4.1%) is hardly noticeable, or is it?
I think the brain will generally adjust/adapt to whatever the media limitations are, as long as what you watch is entertaining!